framing

Pawns of the Dark

image

What is fear? 

When I was a child I used to sprint up the stairs after turning off all the lights downstairs. It was a routine: the kitchen, switch off, run to the telly area; the telly area, switch off, run to living room; the living room, switch off, sprint for dear life up those stairs. 

I believed a ghost would follow me if I stayed in the dark – in retrospect it resembled something like the pokemon Gengar – and irrational as it was, this fear held onto me strong for many years. I imagined its wide grin, spiky head and pointed fingers, round body as tall as me, simply staring with those big old eyes – always, always staring. 

image

I never could imagine what it would do if it caught me – I was too chicken for that. All I could muster up was that if this thing, this little devil, this ghost caught me – well that would be a very bad thing, wouldn’t it? And it was just enough to send me off sprinting, tripping on the stairs and jumping into bed as quickly as could. 

All of this drove my mother nuts, who was mostly annoyed with my shenanigans when I tussled up her bed (“you’ll break the springs the rate you’re pouncing on them!”). Now it’s all a memory, and a rather funny one too; still, to this day I habitually turn off the lights in the same manner before, and every once in awhile I’ll find myself walking up the stairs faster than usual once the lights are all out. 

So what is fear exactly?  

image

A good portion of our life is uncontrolled. Weather, disease, economics, death – we can map these out, react to them, possibly predict their course but ultimately we can never foresee the future. And that’s just it: what we cannot control, what is beyond us can be awe-inspiring and utterly terrifying. 

This lack of control is a slight to our own ego, our pride in existence; in a sense it makes us feel subservient to a greater force that is arguably unpredictable, a greater power per se. And that’s just it: here we are, proud humans, being tampered with with things outside of our control that essentially render us helpless. 

Of course, such things are to be expected. We can only stay in control to a certain extent – what we eat, what we wear, what we like, how we talk – but beyond that our natural instincts instruct us to expect and anticipate the unforeseeable and the unforeseen. It’s survival instinct at its finest, and it’s also how and why our fears can get the best of us – in real life and in fiction. 

image

Classic horror narratives and century old folklore play off these aspects of fear. From the Slit-mouth demon to the Hound of Baskerville to Sadako, these stories and their respective narrators played off our innate and subconscious characteristics, puppeteering the smallest of elements into grossly gripping disturbances to psychological peace. We know something is going to happen – just what it is is the real question, and perhaps the most maddening part. 

When we are put at suspense and dangled in wait, the built anxiety becomes stronger and stronger until suddenly it’s there – hand, a face, a cackle, a blur, a element. The element itself may not be wholly terrifying, but the wait, the anticipation is what triggers an instinctual fear. The longer it is, the more our imaginations take hold and by the time it reaches we can only pray its presence is only half as bad as we hope it to be. 

What makes the element itself additionally terrifying is subjectively personal. For Bruce Wayne, it was bats; for Hamlet, it was his father’s ghost. The manifestations that trigger fear and subsequent horror have varying meanings and implications of our own subconscious and psychology, perhaps more than we can explain ourselves. I was fearful of the Gengar-like ghost because subconsciously, I was cautious of fickle classmates who in one moment were my best friend and in another moment mischievous and plotting; the ghost was my insecurity materialized, a devilish grinner who simply antagonized my imagination with its mischievous aura. I know this now, only may years later with extreme contemplation, and even then I’m not sure if I’ve hit it quite right. 

image

In film, the framing, pacing and sound (or lack of) of a uncontrollable element is essential to create any effective suspense and subsequent horror. From Dutch angles to extreme close-ups, the filmmaker is in total control of what we are able to see and hear, lending them masters of our expectations and the elements that trigger our instincts of fear. In the dark of the theatre we are helpless, subjected and subservient to what is unfolding on screen. We know not of the element and its effects until it occurs, and until then we are left to calculate algorithms of possibilities to prepare for such shock, ironically resulting in more stress and anxiety before element X even appears. Arguably, the less element X is seen the more suspenseful and terrifying the narrative becomes – for we are nearly always left in the dark, vulnerable and sensitive still to the sensation of such an wild card entity. And when it actually strikes down by God is it horrifying. 

Fear is instinct, anticipation, expectation – all together. It is essential for survival and stems from the inevitably of elements beyond our control that perhaps incept in our own insecurities as well. In a sense, fear lends itself solely to sensation in which we react to it immediately, commonly in the form of horror or flight. The psychological aspect, the subconscious angle is perhaps the most disconcerting characteristic of it all, and perhaps something we may never fully understand despite decades of Freudian teachings. 

image

So what is fear? Perhaps we are destined to never know beyond its sensation of anticipation and elementalism. It may simply be instinctual, ingrained in our own existence. And by God, it surely is a fascinating and bewitching element to manipulate and study in narratives and storytelling – something that I hope to investigate with future articles. 

A Brief Introduction to Punches, Kicks, and Explosions

image

I’ve been watching the 2010 World Cup lately. I’m a big fan of football/soccer and grew up playing it before physical injury and time ended my athletic career; watching the games, I can’t help but yell in support and outrage as players rush down the field in mad dashes to score and defend in the name of national pride. Odd, though, is that my experience as a broadcast viewer is both nostalgic and observatory – the result of multiple shots pieced together in a cohesive transmission. 

image

There’s something unique when one experiences such athleticism as a television spectator: oftentimes the events are framed as establishing shots, encompassing the field/court and panning left and right; occasionally the broadcasts are interspersed with close ups of the players to detail athletic prowess, enlighten upon results of a called foul, or provide reactionary shots of the players themselves; and every once in awhile, there is the unusual crane or aeriel shot as additional angles and perspectives for replay and consideration post facto. 

image

The result is that television spectating is both objectively aloof and personally engrossing – by seeing both the scale of the playing field and the expressions of players, television spectators are both overseeing judges of the teams’ abilities and sympathizers with intermittent glimpses into the players’ actions – in short, it’s both a very objective and subjective experience, and it’s the same basis for creating an effective action sequence in film. 

imageCrouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, 2000. 

When piecing together an action sequence, it is important to understand the technical and aesthetic components of framing; more important is knowing when, how and how much to use different shots in order to create an engrossing and cohesive sequence. Intents and styles differ, but the aim of creating a coherent and visually unique progression of fists, kicks and guns is what every filmmaker hopes to achieve when cinematic narratives require of such. Here are some types of shots, their corresponding examples, and notes on the effects of overuse: 

image Kung Fu Hustle, 2005. 

Establishing shots put everything into context – the environment, the people involved, and the stakes at hand. It is probably one of the most important shots to incorporate in any action sequence since the viewer needs a sense of relativity in order to fully comprehend the scale of the action occurring. Overuse dulls the action sequence, maintaining too much of an objectivist’s lens and detachment from the power and emotion of the players and stakes at hand. 

image Cowboy Bebop, 1998. 

High-angle shots adds an objective feel to what is happening on screen, almost as if one were gazing directly downwards like a Greek muse. There is, in a sense, a level of detachment from the immediate action like an establishing shot except that this framing style is notably more clinical – imagine looking at bacteria on a petri dish under a microscope and (hopefully) this analogy may make more sense. Overuse becomes visually strenuous since the viewer cannot directly see the players facial expressions and thus have a harder time engaging and sympathizing with the action. 

image Enter the Dragon, 1973. 

Full figure/medium/close up shots are oftentimes reactionary and engrossing in intent. These are the kinds of shots most viewers are very familiar with, as action sequences are most glorified or jarring with these types of framing. Multiple angles and cuts on the editors desk add additional movement to what is occurring, and what may look silly from afar could easily look exceptionally impressive or brutal up close.

image Why hallo thar, Transformer 2

Overuse becomes claustrophobic, messy and incomprehensible as to what is actually happening; worse is that the viewer becomes tired and desensitized to the action, ultimately resulting in disengagement and boredom. 

image The Bourne Ultimatum, 2007. 

Hand-held cameras add an additional intimacy to what is occurring, almost as if the viewer is in the immediate action alongside the players. They are often employed for medium/close ups, follow shots, or even long takes of any sequence. 

imageCloverfield, 2008. 

Overuse can easily result in sloppiness, obscurity, and even nausea. 

image Children of Men, 2006. 

Long takes are probably one of the trickiest shots to pull off – the wire-walkers of filmmaking. It requires incredible planning, patience, and distinct vision as to how the action plays out, and a conscious effort to maintain the viewer’s fullest attention. It is particularly strenuous on the actors, director and cameramen involved; multi-takes are not uncommon, and though digital effects can stitch together separate sequences into a seamless take it is nonetheless one of the most technically demanding envisions possible.

imageOldboy, 2003. 

However, if everything is planned and dictated accordingly, the long take can be one of the most aesthetically and narratively rewarding stylizations of action (even narrative) sequences, creating a feel of uninterrupted observation and engagement of the viewer. 

imageThe Dark Knight, 2008. 

These are just some basic ideas in constructing any action sequence. Of course they’re not absolute, but like all other things they’re important to consider when framing any choreography of punches and flips and pain. As the basis of stylizations and notable trademarks, different shots, frames, and angles are what make any action sequence unique in itself. Film, games, sports – whatever your cup of tea happens to be. And hell, what a sequence we could possibly see.